What is the likely size of the GWR future local / regional fleet

[Anonymous10]

I would say a 158 as it is over a 3 hour journey end to end. The 166s were designed as London commuter trains and they aren't great on long distance regional operations while this is the sort of thing the 158s were designed for. They've also got quite a long dwell at Bristol anyway.

I believe it's only a 2 year extension but they'll go once the etcs 197s enter service.

granted either way tfw wont have anything except 175s and possibly some 153s

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I believe it's only a 2 year extension but they'll go once the etcs 197s enter service.

For that are we saying the ETCS 197s replace the 158s on the Cambrian (Any ideas when that'll be?)
Then those 158s will replace 150s
With 175s being replaced directly by 197s?

 

[Brubulus]

I would want to see 2 coach 165s even further west, directly replacing 150s with 158s doing much of what is currently done by 166s with the networkers generally doing shorter distance workings instead of the Portsmouth-Cardiff diagrams.

 

[JonathanH]

I would want to see 2 coach 165s even further west, directly replacing 150s with 158s doing much of what is currently done by 166s with the networkers generally doing shorter distance workings instead of the Portsmouth-Cardiff diagrams.

That isn't happening. 16x aren't cleared beyond Plymouth and won't be. The traincrew don't know them so there would be a lot of training required, and the priority for the moment in Cornwall is for traincrew to learn 80x units.

There aren't enough 158s at GWR to provide the capacity on Cardiff to Portsmouth and the need to provide capacity around Bristol (and indeed elsewhere) on board the Cardiff to Portsmouth services needs 16x units.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

possibly some 153s

The wikipedia page indicates they're keeping 8 153s for the Heart of Wales Line
According to Wikipedia the source is Modern Railways issue 874 July 2021 page 13, but I don't have access to that so can't confirm anything.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

If it was me, I'd replace the 15x and 16x trains with a Class 196-shaped train but this being full battery, bi-mode or tri-mode. As 2-car trains cause problems for passengers on busy routes, I'd order them in 3 and 4-car formations.

Why 3 and 4 coaches? Well if the Bath Spa - Portsmouth bit can be further cleared then I think 6-car formations (3 very early morning and very late at night on weekdays).

Plus 3 coaches can be the minimum

4 coaches would be ideal for the Exmouth branch (I believe these 4 coaches, not the 15x or 16x) would have about 310 seats.

It's also tempting to replace the Class 387's so there's just one type of train on the non-InterCity routes but I'd say keep the '387' routes as they are.

 

[Snow1964]

I would say a 158 as it is over a 3 hour journey end to end. The 166s were designed as London commuter trains and they aren't great on long distance regional operations while this is the sort of thing the 158s were designed for. They've also got quite a long dwell at Bristol anyway.

GWR operate some services that are over 4 hour end to end (to Weymouth, Great Malvern etc). However all their Wessex services tend to operate as mix of local services, and fast regional services, where some stations are quite widely spaced. They also tend to have high churn levels at places like Bath Spa, and other stations.

None of the 158, 166, 166 fleet is ideal for this mix. The end doors on 158s struggle with the churn, the 165s were never designed for journeys over about an hour, the 166s often end up coupled to a 2car 165 on busier trains so don’t really fit in either. Because many of the local stations are not staffed at times, coupling non-gangwayed stock where guards and ticket inspectors can’t access all passengers, or short platforms isn’t helpful either.

They really need a 5car (or 6-8 section articulated unit), about 120m long bi-mode with dual voltage capability, good number of doors, decent seating (and I mean comfortable for 2+ hour journeys), ideally with level boarding for the longer regional trains. I would say 110mph on 25kv, but around 95mph on 750v and diesel should be ok. For simplicity will call this a regional bi-mode.

The 165s and 166s could be retained for some local trains until early 2030s, (although places like Cornwall would need some staff training), but whatever is introduced would also need training.

Actually GWR are not the only operator that needs the regional bi-mode. There is a strong case for some of its services through Cotswolds too, and even those where IETs are taking over from Castle HSTs (which don’t need a train designed for high speed).

There is a huge gap between high speed intercity trains and local service diesel and commuter EMUs where nothing since the 30+ year old 158, 159 fleet has tried to fill the requirement. If a leasing company speculatively built 50 of these, they would easily find homes in mid 2020s as the sprinter era trains need cascading out. However unlike when Angel ordered the 25 Siemens EMUs speculatively, the DfT now micro manages so speculative orders are now high risk even when a demand is clearly looming.

 

[heathrowrail]

I really think it would be a great opportunity for low-floored units to be rolled out (think FLIRTs), rather than CAFs. However, we will have to wait and see who they choose to manufacture the units, as FLIRTs would likely be a more costly option when compared to CAF units (and likely the same would go for Bi-Mode Hitachis).

As far as replacing the 387s, unless there was a subfleet of pure EMUs among the order it would make minimal sense in my view, as the extra weight of powerpacks or batteries would make them more inefficient than the 387s, likely negating the advantages a completely homogeneous regional fleet would bring.

I would think that when the new units begin to arrive they would take the 150s out of service first as they are the oldest, and then begin to phase out the oldest/least reliable turbos and 158s.

It would make perfect sense as it will allow Oxford, Bicester, Hungerford, Bedwyn, Gatwick Airport all to be served by direct trains again and allow IETs to move back to core routes which I suspect will get busier again in the future.

 

[Energy]

Oxford

Already has direct trains to London from Chiltern and GWR, once electrification is finally done after station remodelling I'd imagine it will go over to 387 operation.

Bicester,

Direct services from Bicester Village are done by Chiltern.

Hungerford, Bedwyn,

While Bedwyn to Newbury should be electrified (apparently the BCR was 2.58 in 2009) it was never planned in the GWML modernisation, so the IETs aren't "moving back" to the core routes (I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong). Its a short enough distance that battery is easily doable, there was an announcement on fitting batteries on the GWR IETs as well as the engines though I haven't heard much since.

Gatwick Airport

Direct from where? Battery units or full electrification would make more sense for this route than a bimode unit. Shame that battery 387s are too difficult.

 

[heathrowrail]

Already has direct trains to London from Chiltern and GWR, once electrification is finally done after station remodelling I'd imagine it will go over to 387 operation.

Direct services from Bicester Village are done by Chiltern.

While Bedwyn to Newbury should be electrified (apparently the BCR was 2.58 in 2009) it was never planned in the GWML modernisation, so the IETs aren't "moving back" to the core routes (I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong). Its a short enough distance that battery is easily doable, there was an announcement on fitting batteries on the GWR IETs as well as the engines though I haven't heard much since.

Direct from where? Battery units or full electrification would make more sense for this route than a bimode unit. Shame that battery 387s are too difficult.

Oxford is done via 5 car IETs currently and a 165 shuttle to Didcot. Both could be replaced with a new class. My apologies I meant Banbury current served by a few IETs(I think it's just 1 a day) and a shuttle service. Bedwyn will never be electrified in the foreseeable future unless it is extended to somewhere like Exeter. This would then allow IETs to move back onto more express trains or allow additional services to Bristol, Cheltenham, Exeter etc. Again if they are bi-mode already a 3rd rail pick up is not out of the question which could also be used on the section from Salisbury to Portsmouth.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Battery 387 units are not too difficult but (through losing a traction pack) you lose the 110mph in the process, which was a show stopper when the fast Bristols were planned and the 387’s used the main line. Nowadays, although not ideal, that shouldn’t be such an issue.

In terms of the locals, one of the reasons why 165 units were not cleared for Cornwall was the Looe and Gunnislake branches where 23m stock is a problem, due to cardan shaft and coupler throw issues. Wales and West found this out when they did some trials - in fact the guy who did it can point you to the exact spot on the Gunny where the unit wheel started to climb the rail!

Something like a bi or tri mode Flirt would be ideal for the West. Both the Penzance-Cardiff and Portsmouth-Cardiff however need something that is 5 car 23m equivalent with three bogs, 2+2 seating and about 400 seats overall.

The 5 car IET fleet could then be either lengthened to 7 car as part of re-equipping Cross-Country (with some going to 9 for GWR) or just cascaded back to GWR IC services.

In the London area you can see some kind of 377/387 (or even 379?) EMU/BMU combo being the weapon of choice for all their services.

 

[Energy]

Battery 387 units are not too difficult but (through losing a traction pack) you lose the 110mph in the process, which was a show stopper when the fast Bristols were planned and the 387’s used the main line. Nowadays, although not ideal, that shouldn’t be such an issue.

Always possible to have a battery and a 110mph subfleets, especially if 379s are taken on.

In terms of the locals, one of the reasons why 165 units were not cleared for Cornwall was the Looe and Gunnislake branches where 23m stock is a problem, due to cardan shaft and coupler throw issues. Wales and West found this out when they did some trials - in fact the guy who did it can point you to the exact spot on the Gunny where the unit wheel started to climb the rail!

Thanks for explaining, I thought it was the 165s being particularly wide units which stopped them.

The 5 car IET fleet could then be either lengthened to 7 car as part of re-equipping Cross-Country (with some going to 9 for GWR) or just cascaded back to GWR IC services.

Surely the IEP's long contract would make this difficult?

In the London area you can see some kind of 377/387 (or even 379?) EMU/BMU combo being the weapon of choice for all their services.

Agreed, with the 379s added there should be enough.

Oxford is done via 5 car IETs currently and a 165 shuttle to Didcot. Both could be replaced with a new class.

But why? Once Oxford remodelling is done they should be getting on with electrification, using 387/379s then would make more sense than another fleet.

My apologies I meant Banbury current served by a few IETs(I think it's just 1 a day) and a shuttle service.

Banbury has a 1p2h shuttle to Didcot. Once Oxford is electrified a battery electrostar would make more sense than a bimode unit. For London services Banbury is well served by Chiltern.

A GWR IET from London Paddington to Birmingham Moor Street via Oxford and Banbury would be nice but using an IET on this service would make more sense than keeping a small number of bimode commuter units at Reading.

Bedwyn will never be electrified in the foreseeable future unless it is extended to somewhere like Exeter.

Why? Bedwyn to Newbury is a fairly short distance, a lot shorter than Bedwyn to Exeter.

This would then allow IETs to move back onto more express trains or allow additional services to Bristol, Cheltenham, Exeter etc.

Does Oxford really take up that many IETs?

 

[Brubulus]

Thanks for explaining, I thought it was the 165s being particularly wide units which stopped them.

There really aren't any 20M DMU's left other than the class 150s so GWR are going to have to order new trains. VLR could work on Looe, but Gunnislake includes main line working, so I am not sure if it would meet mainline crash standards.

Surely the IEP's long contract would make this difficult?

I'm sure the 5 car 802s are exactly what ScotRail wants once they've seen sense regarding the HST's. GWR could order 7 coach sets with their 5 coach ones going to ScotRail.

But why? Once Oxford remodelling is done they should be getting on with electrification, using 387/379s then would make more sense than another fleet.

They would not need any more trains as GWR have quite a few 387s and so to extend the Didcot terminators they might need the 3 that they put off lease but nothing more... GWR might lose the 387s if more trains are needed in the third rail area but GN will lose theirs first given how much has been spend on Reading TMD and staff training.

A GWR IET from London Paddington to Birmingham Moor Street via Oxford and Banbury would be nice but using an IET on this service would make more sense than keeping a small number of bimode commuter units at Reading.

It would most likely start at Oxford and use a 165/166 if done.

Does Oxford really take up that many IETs?

Half of the IET's to Oxford have come via the Cotswold Line, the hourly terminator only uses 2 IETs. 387s can only do 110mph so pathing could be a problem but the main benefit of electrification would be that the Didcot terminators would be extended to Oxford. I would presume there would then be a turbo doing an hourly shuttle between Oxford and Banbury.

 

[tbtc]

There really aren't any 20M DMU's left other than the class 150s so GWR are going to have to order new trains

We need some kind of “Direct” 150 replacement - too many of these threads see people coming up with convoluted cascades where 125mph trains are dumped on slower routes so that end doored 90mph 158s can trundle along on services operate by 150s

769s are at least 20m carriage length but four coaches would be overkill on some branches

But there are lots of routes where acceleration is more important than top speed, side doors more important than “inter city ambiance”… a few years ago I backed 230s for that role but events seem to have proved me wrong!

Hopefully some kind of “basic” train will be ordered (but too often in the past, orders were more focused on “flagship” trains for “flagship” routes)

I'm sure the 5 car 802s are exactly what ScotRail wants once they've seen sense regarding the HST's. GWR could order 7 coach sets with their 5 coach ones going to ScotRail

Interesting idea; I wonder how much of the Sunk Cost Fallacy applies to the mess that ScotRail are in, struggling to get ten HSTs a day fit for service out of a fleet of twenty five, will they ever cover to their senses or struggle on until 2030?

Maybe 802s will head north but they don’t need 125mph trains for the Inter7City services, the space “wasted” by the crumple zone would be a consideration at the limited platform of Glasgow Queen Street

Also, I don’t know if they’d find use for all 22 five coach sets at GWR (there’s certainly a lot of Aberdeen/Inverness services still run by DMUs but I don’t know whether these inter work with routes unsuited to 802s - Anniesland, Fife Circle etc)

 

[Brubulus]

We need some kind of “Direct” 150 replacement - too many of these threads see people coming up with convoluted cascades where 125mph trains are dumped on slower routes so that end doored 90mph 158s can trundle along on services operate by 150s

That's usually me... I just don't want to see relatively modern trains go to waste while some lines have 40 year old stock or something that is compleltly unsuitable for the length of journey.

769s are at least 20m carriage length but four coaches would be overkill on some branches

I don't think GWR are going to touch 769s (or any other battery/bimode conversion) for quite a while after that debacle.

But there are lots of routes where acceleration is more important than top speed, side doors more important than “inter city ambiance”… a few years ago I backed 230s for that role but events seem to have proved me wrong!

Hopefully some kind of “basic” train will be ordered (but too often in the past, orders were more focused on “flagship” trains for “flagship” routes)

Definetly agree. Revolution VLR seems like a good idea given the weight and maintainance cost reduction, I just don't think the capacity is high enough for all but the least used lines.
Regarding the latter, at least XC should get 221s and 222s, with them XC should be able to really increase capacity and retire their HSTs/money pits, maybe even add some services.

Maybe 802s will head north but they don’t need 125mph trains for the Inter7City services, the space “wasted” by the crumple zone would be a consideration at the limited platform of Glasgow Queen Street
Also, I don’t know if they’d find use for all 22 five coach sets at GWR (there’s certainly a lot of Aberdeen/Inverness services still run by DMUs but I don’t know whether these inter work with routes unsuited to 802s - Anniesland, Fife Circle etc)

They don't need 125mph stock, but anything less would be seen as a downgrade and Glasgow Queen Street's platforms were extended during EGIP so that's a non-issue. I would assume there is not interworking given the state of most of the Fife 170s. 802 avaliability isn't perfect either so there shouldnt be too many spare.

 

[Energy]

Maybe 802s will head north but they don’t need 125mph trains for the Inter7City services, the space “wasted” by the crumple zone would be a consideration at the limited platform of Glasgow Queen Street

Also, I don’t know if they’d find use for all 22 five coach sets at GWR (there’s certainly a lot of Aberdeen/Inverness services still run by DMUs but I don’t know whether these inter work with routes unsuited to 802s - Anniesland, Fife Circle etc)

I don't think 802s are what Scotrail wants, its decarbonisation strategy is battery and hydrogen. A FLIRT with a suitable interior would be closer.

, the hourly terminator only uses 2 IETs. 387s can only do 110mph so pathing could be a problem

I'd be suprised if there is that much 125mph running there.

GWR could order 7 coach sets with their 5 coach ones going to ScotRail.

7 coach sets really aren't that useful for GWR.

 

[Parallel]

I don’t know if I’m being cynical, but I can’t see there being money for GWR to place a large order of units, at least in the short (or medium) term. The DfT are hell-bent on cost saving - I could see them approving a small order to replace the 150s eventually if it becomes cost-prohibitive to keep maintaining them, but the West has received cast-offs for years. This government also don’t seem particularly focussed on the environment so I can’t see them prioritising the withdrawal of DMUs. Maybe priorities will change if another lot get voted in.

Clarence Yard’s suggestions sound reasonable in an ideal situation.

 

[irish_rail]

7 coach sets really aren't that useful for GWr

Got to take issue with this. 7 coach sets is just what GWR needs for The Cotswolds, Cheltenham, Exeter stoppers and perhaps Cardiffs. Dont forget the whole 10 car (2 x 5 car sets) has been pretty much discredited now and so lots and lots of short trains that can make longer trains are not now what GWR needs. A mix of 9s (for Penzance, Bristol and Swansea) 7s (for Cotswold, Cheltenham, Exeter stoppers) and a few 5s for some off peak Oxfords Bedwyns and 2+4 replacement is whats needed.

 

[Brubulus]

I don't think 802s are what Scotrail wants, its decarbonisation strategy is battery and hydrogen. A FLIRT with a suitable interior would be closer.

The lines to Inverness and Aberdeen should be getting electrified in the next 15 years, so once that is done, the 802s can have their dissel engines removed/replaced with batteries. They are pretty much what Scotrail want. FLIRTs are great for almost everything, they've just got a price...

I'd be suprised if there is that much 125mph running there.

It's quite a while as 125mph gets pretty far into london on the GWML, and differing top speeds will really eat into pathing on the GWML fasts.

 

[Energy]

Got to take issue with this. 7 coach sets is just what GWR needs for The Cotswolds, Cheltenham, Exeter stoppers and perhaps Cardiffs. Dont forget the whole 10 car (2 x 5 car sets) has been pretty much discredited now and so lots and lots of short trains that can make longer trains are not now what GWR needs.

I take what I said back, 7 coach sets make sense for those routes but not the Plymouths. Cardiffs may be not.

and a few 5s for some off peak Oxfords Bedwyns and 2+4 replacement is whats needed.

Long term 2+4 should be the new regional fleet, Oxford should be 387s after electrification and remodelling, Bedwyn should really be electrified at some point. Bedwyn could be battery electrostars but loss of 110mph on those units would be annoying.

It's quite a while as 125mph gets pretty far into london on the GWML, and differing top speeds will really eat into pathing on the GWML fasts.

Sorry, was talking about the Didcot to Oxford bit, 387s run 110mph to Didcot so combining with the shuttle would make sense.

The lines to Inverness and Aberdeen should be getting electrified in the next 15 years, so once that is done, the 802s can have their dissel engines removed/replaced with batteries. They are pretty much what Scotrail want. FLIRTs are great for almost everything, they've just got a price...

Transport Scotland are buying normal battery EMUs and hydrogen units. Not units which are converted later.

 

[43096]

The lines to Inverness and Aberdeen should be getting electrified in the next 15 years, so once that is done, the 802s can have their dissel engines removed/replaced with batteries. They are pretty much what Scotrail want. FLIRTs are great for almost everything, they've just got a price...

You do realise that an 80x set has “got a price” too? They’re not cheap and they’re not good quality, either. The FLIRT is at least a high quality train.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

You do realise that an 80x set has “got a price” too? They’re not cheap and they’re not good quality, either. The FLIRT is at least a high quality train.

The only difference being the 80x is an Intercity train, and also a train with the feel of an Intercity train. The 745 and much less the 755 have neither attributes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only difference being the 80x is an Intercity train, and also a train with the feel of an Intercity train. The 745 and much less the 755 have neither attributes.

And ScotRail doesn't really operate any proper InterCity services. Like Wales, they are long distance regional expresses with considerable overlapping short distance traffic, for which a hybrid unit like a Class 170 is perfectly designed. The 745 is just another variant on that theme.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

And ScotRail doesn't really operate any proper InterCity services. Like Wales, they are long distance regional expresses with considerable overlapping short distance traffic, for which a hybrid unit like a Class 170 is perfectly designed. The 745 is just another variant on that theme.

But if you don’t have to have a Regional Express/glorified commuter train with tiny carriages and one door per each, why would you? The 80x is far more simple.

Glasgow/Edinburgh - Aberdeen/Inverness is far longer than London - Bristol/Cardiff.

 

[REVUpminster]

I wonder if GWR would consider 2 and 3 car 197s for Devon and Cornwall. Made, or is it glued together, in Newport. A follow on order after Transport for Wales would keep the factory open.

I know I am going to be shot down if I suggest they had 3+2 seating for the Devon Metro. 2+3 car units for St Ives in the summer.

 

[Ashley Hill]

I wonder if GWR would consider 2 and 3 car 197s for Devon and Cornwall.

No good for Gunnislake or Looe and probably St Ives. Too long!

 

[150249]

I wonder if GWR would consider 2 and 3 car 197s for Devon and Cornwall. Made, or is it glued together, in Newport. A follow on order after Transport for Wales would keep the factory open.

I hope they wouldn't consider.

I know I am going to be shot down if I suggest they had 3+2 seating for the Devon Metro. 2+3 car units for St Ives in the summer.

Yes, yes you will. NO 3+2 SEATING

 

[RPI]

They'd probably be fine for everything other than Looe, though the only short platform issue is at Looe its self (SDO would sort all the others) and to be honest, would SDO having probably the rear set off doors off the platform cause an issue? Even in high summer Looe isn't massively busy compared to other lines in Devon and Cornwall.

Maybe there's a case for re engineering the 150's for hybrid/more efficient engines just for the Cornish branches.

Going back to Looe, I remember in the summer there was regularly a 3 car DMU used with the rear coach well off the platform, this was well into the mid to late 90's too, I believe up until either 95 or 96. Usually a single 153 in the winter back then.

Thinking outside the box, would a single car version of a 197 be suitable for GWR? Probably not, but putting it out there, a fleet of 5 or 6 would be handy for strengthening and Looe/Newquay and St Ives in Winter, though you do then have the issues of stock sat around out of season.

 

[gc4946]

At some point the 150s will eventually need replacing.
Maybe GWR could persuade Greater Anglia to lend one of their 755/3s for evaluation on the Cornish branch lines?

 

[150249]

At some point the 150s will eventually need replacing.
Maybe GWR could persuade Greater Anglia to lend one of their 755/3s for evaluation on the Cornish branch lines?

Doubt Greater Anglia would budge on that one. Would be helpful though.

150249 HAS to stay. If it gets scrapped I don't know what will happen to me